B1G Expansion
- Thread starter NedFromYork
- Start date
I'm curious what you're basing that on because the Big 10 keeps targeting AAU members and there's a lot of chatter from CFB sources that it does matter and ND keeps coming up as the lone possible exception.
What do Houston and Baylor add? Financially, adding them would mean a net loss to the annual per program payout. They aren't a big media draw despite their locations, UT and A&M dominate the Texas market.
This is the problem--you're still looking at it as a conference and not what's happening. It isn't a net loss. You do realize the SEC and Big Ten plan on destroying college football as we know it. You're post indicate you think the Big Ten and SEC are going to make one or two more moves. That's not what's happening here at all.
I don't understand why people seem to be in denial.
And once Notre Dame joins it doesn't matter any more. That's the point of adding them first.
I really don't understand what's going on here. Are people just living in the past? Do they not want to accept what's going on? Do they really think this is even close to done?
Are you on crack? None of that nonsense is happening. Revenue, not academics, will dictate how this plane lands.
The consensus seems to be Stanford but I think that’s just conjecture not anyone from the inside knowing.
Phil Knight would never accept Oregon heading to the Big 12. Oregon and Washington to the Big 10 and Or St and Wa St to the Big 12. And in this crazy world I doubt UCLA and USC departed the PAC 12 without assurances from other west coast schools they are to follow. I am sure the result will be a west coast pod of 6 schools in the Big 10.
The only assurance UCLA and USC wanted was $$$.
Actually I'm increasingly getting the sense that USC and UCLA don't want other west coast schools and feel they can prosper more by being the only Big Ten schools on the west coast. Probably don't like other Pac-12 schools coming to southern California and getting recruits either. If the Big Ten ends up adding any other schools from the Pac-12, I expect it will be limited to only 2 or 3.
Over the next 5-10 yrs the B1G will only take AAU schools and ND. End of story. No Wash St, Ore St, or AZ State from out west. Only Iowa St and Kansas from the B12. Only GTech, UNC, Duke, UVA and sPitt from the ACC. The rest of the schools fall to the SEC or lower levels. That’s 15 teams and the SEC and the B1G become like the NFL is with two conferences and a super bowl every year. The delay is the ACC TV rights which is 10 yr deal but someone will test it and break it.
Even the Big 12 is not desperate for these 2 schools as unfortunately for them they just don't bring enough to the table for the Big 12. If the Pac 12 can not figure our a way to stay together, IMO those 2 schools are destined for the Mountain West.
Last edited:
I don't disagree on the AAU debate, but no way the Big Ten takes Iowa State or PITT (by the way Iowa State is no longer an AAU school). I suppose Kansas is an outside possibility but I highly doubt they would ever get a Big Ten invite.
Iowa State announces its departure from AAU
University says it has “concluded its membership in the Association of American Universities” and criticizes the way the group selects its members. Iowa State has been a member since 1958.
That is a shame for those schools. Washington State has a cool ESPN game day flag tradition.
I doubt they would come solo but I suppose it is anyone’s guess. At least when we came to this conference we were contiguous with the footprint. Too bad Joe’s east coast conference never happened, though. We have more in common with North Carolina than Michigan. Hopefully the Big 10 absorbs the Virginia and North Carolina schools to get partially there in a super conference.
Are you still trying to pretend going to the ACC would have been better than the Big Ten?
With the $$ that is going to the B1G, a school like Penn State can hire that guy to fly the PSU flag instead. Of course after all this shakes out 90% of Big Ten fans will be watching Fox pregame on Saturdays as ESPN is going all in with the SEC.
You can look at it this way, for the foreseeable future what school that is NOT currently in the B10 or SEC has a legit shot at the NC? Clemson and ND obviously then it drops off a cliff. Clearly ND and Clemson will end up in either the B10 or SEC or ND stubbornly hangs on as an Indie. Either way you are left with no schools outside of the B10 or SEC with a realistic shot to win it all. Yes, I know you could say only a handful of schools ever do but does anyone really think Oregon is going to win a natty in the next 5 years? They are probably third after Clemson and Notre Dump in terms of marquee programs left on the big board.
I think the ACC is done. Notre Dump will bail then they go under and every man for himself. I think you have a death battle between the Pac 10 and Big 12 happening now. The loser goes under while the winner cobbles enough together to be a remote competitor the B10/SEC juggernaut. Both have new commissioners who will be aggressive to essentially save their job. If one conference (and I think it will be one) other than the B10 and SEC can corral Okie State, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas, Stanford that would be enough to survive albeit a very poor relative to the B10 and SEC.
The problem is I think all the strong brand names either in football, basketball or academics or all of the above go to either the B10 or SEC. So that would be Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson, Duke, UVA, Va Tech, UNC, Miami and I will throw Kansas in here because of basketball and it is a pretty good academic institution. If all those dominoes fall then I think you don't have a legit 3rd conference because I think at that point Okie State and probably Baylor go to the SEC. Then you have table scraps after that.
Last edited:
A resuscitation of the bowls is an interesting thought. The Rose Bowl cannot be happy that their two golden boys bailed to the B10. Their marquee bowl matchup just became a B10 regular season game. They are probably up to something to save their beloved Granddaddy of them all.
Agree. But with more and more players opting out, the marquee players, the bowls are in trouble. This really opens the door to a 16 team championship with the bowls participating. With meaningful games perhaps players will play
Agreed--players would be criticized by NFL teams for sitting out playoff games as opposed to a glorified scrimmage for SWAG.
Both the Big Ten and SEC expand to 20 or 24--both conferences get 8 playoff teams with the winner of each making the final game which could be the Rose or Fiesta Bowl.
It sucks that we're losing tradition but I'll watch ever second of those playoff games whether or not Penn State is involved whereas i won't watch of a bowl game now other than the playoff because it's pointless. Including Penn State.
I do think we are on a trajectory to having 2 major conferences, likely separated from the NCAA. Houston and Baylor aren't needed to do that. What's the case for adding teams that hurt the other schools financially and add very little from a viewership, marketability, or athletic perspective? You keep saying it's going to happen but haven't provided any rationale why. What is the upside for the other 20 schools in an expanded Big 10 to vote in favor of adding teams like Baylor or Houston when doing so will remove millions of dollars from the annual payout of existing conference members?
Last edited:
For some reason I started seeing posts on Facebook about the b1g expansion. This one started it. The author was an announcer for Michigan sports. One reply blamed the current expansion on adding PSU. Now I see additional threads from MSU traditionalists.
So, welcome to the new world order of collegiate athletics. UCLA and USC are joining the Big 10. As I said to a newspaper reporter late last year who was doing a story on my retirement from the broadcast booth, I told him we may be entering a very dark time in college football. This latest move of the Big Ten to move UCLA and USC into the conference is part of the unraveling of what we knew of college football.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the Big Ten or the two University's. They are doing their best for their survival. It is in their best interest, and I don't blame them a bit. That doesn't mean that the move isn't chipping away at the foundation of the collegiate football landscape that we've lived with for the last half century.
When you look back a little bit in time, this move shouldn't surprise anyone. When Texas and Oklahoma left the Big Twelve, it was just a matter of time for others to join the moving party. When Texas and Oklahoma bolted for the SEC, the Big Twelve was gutted. With USC and UCLA leaving the Pac 12, that conference is gutted. The next move may be Washington, Oregon, Stanford, and maybe California following suit and moving to the Big Ten, making the Big Ten a 20 team super-conference.
I mean seriously, without USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, and Stanford,--the Pac 12 is what? Who could they possible add to have the same strength and influence? The answer is nobody.
I'm not a clairvoyant, but if I had to predict, I'd suggest this move by the Big Ten, USC and UCLA is just the second salvo in a realignment into a group of superpowers in collegiate football splitting the television money pie. The first salvo, as I mentioned earlier, was Texas and Oklahoma moving to the SEC. And, don't for a second think the SEC is done. Right now, the SEC and the Big 10 are aggressively strengthening their footprint and number of television sets their conference can deliver. The best teams of the other conferences that are still hanging on, (you listening ACC and Clemson?) are going to have some suitors coming their way with very tempting and lucrative sales pitch's.
Look, I don't now how it's all going to shake out, but I will tell you that in my opinion, college football as we knew it even 10 years ago is gone forever. Conference championships that used to be coveted are going to take a back seat to a spot in a national playoff. With the transfer portal and name image and likeness dollars gathering steam and gaining ever more influence on the recruiting process for elite athletes, we are in the wild wild west. The rules are being made up as they go along. There is precious little management or governance over this runaway train right now.
To be honest, there are some that I am sure kind of like the chaos that's going on these days in college football. I am not one of them. To me, college football is losing a lot of it's allure in the name of progress. I'm a guy who likes tradition. The current direction cares nothing for tradition or history. In my humble opinion that's a step backwards, not forward.
Stay well to all of you. Go Blue
Jim Brandstatter
July 1 at 9:33 PM ·So, welcome to the new world order of collegiate athletics. UCLA and USC are joining the Big 10. As I said to a newspaper reporter late last year who was doing a story on my retirement from the broadcast booth, I told him we may be entering a very dark time in college football. This latest move of the Big Ten to move UCLA and USC into the conference is part of the unraveling of what we knew of college football.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the Big Ten or the two University's. They are doing their best for their survival. It is in their best interest, and I don't blame them a bit. That doesn't mean that the move isn't chipping away at the foundation of the collegiate football landscape that we've lived with for the last half century.
When you look back a little bit in time, this move shouldn't surprise anyone. When Texas and Oklahoma left the Big Twelve, it was just a matter of time for others to join the moving party. When Texas and Oklahoma bolted for the SEC, the Big Twelve was gutted. With USC and UCLA leaving the Pac 12, that conference is gutted. The next move may be Washington, Oregon, Stanford, and maybe California following suit and moving to the Big Ten, making the Big Ten a 20 team super-conference.
I mean seriously, without USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, and Stanford,--the Pac 12 is what? Who could they possible add to have the same strength and influence? The answer is nobody.
I'm not a clairvoyant, but if I had to predict, I'd suggest this move by the Big Ten, USC and UCLA is just the second salvo in a realignment into a group of superpowers in collegiate football splitting the television money pie. The first salvo, as I mentioned earlier, was Texas and Oklahoma moving to the SEC. And, don't for a second think the SEC is done. Right now, the SEC and the Big 10 are aggressively strengthening their footprint and number of television sets their conference can deliver. The best teams of the other conferences that are still hanging on, (you listening ACC and Clemson?) are going to have some suitors coming their way with very tempting and lucrative sales pitch's.
Look, I don't now how it's all going to shake out, but I will tell you that in my opinion, college football as we knew it even 10 years ago is gone forever. Conference championships that used to be coveted are going to take a back seat to a spot in a national playoff. With the transfer portal and name image and likeness dollars gathering steam and gaining ever more influence on the recruiting process for elite athletes, we are in the wild wild west. The rules are being made up as they go along. There is precious little management or governance over this runaway train right now.
To be honest, there are some that I am sure kind of like the chaos that's going on these days in college football. I am not one of them. To me, college football is losing a lot of it's allure in the name of progress. I'm a guy who likes tradition. The current direction cares nothing for tradition or history. In my humble opinion that's a step backwards, not forward.
Stay well to all of you. Go Blue
You keep falsely stating it will remove millions--it will not. There will be a new contract worth far more than what it is now and there won't just be 32 teams involved. Likely 48. Have you been following this at all or just want to believe things play out like you want them to?
Of course there will be a lot more money with the next contract for the existing teams. It's has been suggested that the next contract will bring more than $100 million per year, per team.
NCAA insider says UCLA and USC are 'following the money' to $100M in possible TV revenue with Big-10
UCLA and USC stand to make an extra $100 million each year with move to Big-10.
sportsnaut.com
The point that you don't get is that most of the new teams that you're proposing aren't good additions. They will take money away from the existing conference teams.
You seem to suggest that schools such as BC are a good addition. When in fact, they aren't.
Let's do this as a simple exercise for you: If each current team gets $50 million, and the next contract goes to $100 million. If we add BC, and each team now gets $95 million, is that an increase or decrease by adding BC???
Last edited:
Yeah and get off my lawn. Times change so if you don't like it don't watch or go to the games. You can blame whoever but like almost everything they change over time and usually money is the key driver of it.
At no point did I say I wanted BC. Notre Dame very well might request BC in the league though. You keep using made up figures to try to justify things. Fox/ESPN say to do this we want 48 teams there will be 48 teams.
My words--which I said again todayThey are in your plan that you stated on Monday, at 6:28 PM:
B1G Expansion
At this point I think Oregon and Washington are inevitable and will be good adds. I am hoping if Clemson+ do go to the SEC, that Virginia ultimately chooses B1G. Hoping the next four for B1G are Oregon, Washington, Notre Dame, and Virginia. Might have to add Stanford to get Notre Dame and I...bwi.forums.rivals.com
Big Ten--Stanford, Colorado, Georgia Tech & Boston College (ND would love Stanford and BC joining)
Never once said I wanted BC
Then you said this nonsense because contrary to what you claim you're not accepting what is happening here.
Unless a school can add at least $125+ million annually to the Big 10, they aren't getting an invitation.
Yes, you're adding BC....just like I said you did.
Again, they don't make sense. Fwiw, most of the other teams you mentioned don't make financial sense either.
Last edited:
I explained why. You said "You seem to suggest that schools such as BC are a good addition" which is not what I said. Stop reading into things and take them at face value.
ESPN/Fox/etc are going to want so many games a week. They will expand more and it will be 100% worth it with that TV contract. Maybe you're not understanding how much more money a 48 team league with a 16 team playoff brings in???
You only think a handful of schools will be added. That's not what is happening here.
You couldn't be more wrong. You don't "know" anything--you're assuming it and literally ignoring the writing on the wall pretending that the TV money won't benefit them to add teams.
I don't need to pretend. We are discussing BC, Georgia Tech, Colorado, etc. None of them are $100 million+ per year.
The Big10 is not adding Rapelor or Houston. Not in a million years.
Interesting article from Dan Wetzel. I agree with the sentiment even if that ship has sailed.
Every fan should be rooting for the PACX
Every fan should be rooting for the PACX
There is more going on here than people know, a lot more. Most of the so-called rules (pure revenue) no longer applies.
